Bankdirect Capital Finance, LLC v. Capital Premium Financing, Inc.
1:15-cv-10340
N.D. Ill.Sep 12, 2017Background
- BankDirect Capital Finance, LLC served discovery requests (Requests No. 25, 26, and 7) seeking documents about AFP loan proceeds, repayment arrangements/ability to repay, and resumes/labor information for key CPFI personnel.
- Capital Premium Financing, Inc. responded with boilerplate objections asserting irrelevance and privilege without particularized explanations.
- Defendant moved to compel production, arguing the materials were relevant and that the parties were at an impasse.
- The magistrate judge reviewed the objections and the governing discovery rules and precedent addressing boilerplate objections.
- The court found generic, non-specific boilerplate objections insufficient under Rule 34 and ordered production of the requested documents in accordance with a minute order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether boilerplate objections stating requests are irrelevant or privileged satisfy Rule 34 | Boilerplate objections suffice to deny production | Requests are relevant and producible; boilerplate is improper | Boilerplate objections are inadequate; party must state specific reasons — production ordered |
| Whether requested documents about loan proceeds and repayment are discoverable | Such documents are irrelevant to claims/defenses | Documents bear on use of funds and repayment ability; relevant to claims/defenses | Court deemed requests relevant and producible; ordered compliance |
| Whether personnel resumes/labor information are discoverable | Personnel resumes, ages, compensation, etc., have no bearing on the litigation | Such information can be relevant to claims/defenses and must be justified to be withheld | Blanket objection rejected; party must produce or specifically justify any limited objections |
Key Cases Cited
- Rossetto v. Pabst Brewing Co., Inc., 217 F.3d 539 (7th Cir.) (criticizing protracted discovery)
- Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061 (7th Cir.) (discussing intrusiveness of modern discovery)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Mont., 408 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir.) (rejecting boilerplate objections)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108 (3d Cir.) (requiring meaningful discovery responses)
- Curtis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 807 F.3d 215 (7th Cir.) (Rule 34 requires specific objections)
- McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482 (5th Cir.) (objecting party must show specifically why request is improper)